Sikkim High Court upholds 20-year POCSO sentence in “Romeo-Juliet” case, says it cannot reduce the mandatory minimum despite consensual relationship with a 15-year-old

The survivor, P.W.6, was born on 1 May 2007 and was studying in Class VIII when she met the appellant in October 2021. They developed a romantic relationship, began living together, and in 2022 eloped to Gangtok, where they had a consensual physical relationship. The survivor stated that the appellant had applied “sindoor potey” on her as a symbol of marriage. She subsequently became pregnant and delivered a female child on 18 April 2023.

The survivor’s sister lodged the FIR on 22 December 2022 after learning that the survivor had eloped. Following investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l), punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution examined ten witnesses and relied upon the survivor’s birth certificate, school admission register, live birth register, and DNA evidence establishing that the appellant was the biological father of the child.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant and imposed rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and a fine of ₹2,000 for the offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, principally disputing proof of the survivor’s minority and the sentence.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the survivor was a “child” under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act at the time of the alleged offences.

Whether the birth certificate, school admission register, and live birth register sufficiently established the survivor’s date of birth despite the non-examination of her parents and the appellant’s objections to the manner in which the records were proved.

Whether the survivor’s consensual relationship with the appellant, their customary marriage ceremony, and the existence of a child warranted interference with the conviction or the minimum sentence imposed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court applied Sections 2(d), 5(j)(ii), 5(l), and 6 of the POCSO Act: a person below eighteen years is a “child,” and sexual acts involving such a child attract the statutory offence irrespective of the child’s consent. Section 6 prescribes rigorous imprisonment of not less than twenty years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, extendable to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life, along with fine.

The Court relied on Sections 12 and 16 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the relevant Sikkim Rules concerning issuance and maintenance of birth records. It further applied Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under which entries in official registers made in the discharge of public or statutory duties are relevant and carry a presumption of correctness.

The Court relied on Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 1691, for the evidentiary value of entries made ante litem motam in statutory records.

The appeal was considered under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court held that the prosecution established the survivor’s date of birth through multiple, mutually corroborative sources. Her sister proved the original birth certificate recording 1 May 2007; the survivor herself identified the same certificate and gave the same date of birth; the school principal proved the corresponding school admission entry; and the hospital authority proved the live birth register and the authenticity of the birth certificate.

The defence did not effectively challenge these records or the relevant testimony, and produced no evidence rebutting their presumption of correctness.

The survivor was therefore fifteen years old during the relevant period and fell within the statutory definition of a child under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.

Although the evidence showed a romantic and consensual relationship, the Court treated consent as legally immaterial once the survivor’s minority was established under the POCSO Act.

The DNA evidence further corroborated the survivor’s account and established that the appellant was the biological father of her child.

The Court acknowledged that the case presented a “Romeo-Juliet” situation involving an adolescent survivor and an adult appellant, but held that the High Court lacked plenary powers to disregard the statutory offence or reduce the conviction on that basis.

Since twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment was the minimum sentence mandated by Section 6, the sentence could not be reduced.

It held that the survivor’s minority was proved beyond reasonable doubt through the birth certificate, school records, live birth register, and oral evidence, and that her consent or relationship with the appellant did not constitute a defence under the POCSO Act.

The sentence of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹2,000 for each offence, and the default sentence of two months’ simple imprisonment was confirmed.

The recommendation of ₹7 lakhs compensation to the survivor under the Sikkim Compensation to Victims (or their Dependents) Scheme, 2021 was also left undisturbed.

Copies of the judgment were directed to be forwarded to the Special Court, the appellant, and the Additional Director General of Police for necessary compliance.